Excise Duty : T. T. Recycling Management India Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as applicant) is a resident Private Limited Company...
Excise Duty : It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of PET Chips. The applicant now intends to start a new business whereby the applicant i...
Excise Duty : Nucleus Device is classifiable under Tariff Entry 85176290 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 as Machines...
Excise Duty : The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2011. Being dissatisfied with the dism...
Excise Duty : In the instant case, the applicant has submitted that the tag is applied by them while placing the jewellery in the box to preven...
In the case of Sumit Wool Processors vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import) / (Export) it was held that it is a settled law that even a license obtained by fraud or mis-representation of facts is only voidable and not void ab-initio. It is good in law until it is avoided.
In the case of M/s.Thiru Arooran Sugars Vs. The Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hon’ble Madras High Court held that CENVAT credit on capital goods used in the erection of various capital goods, viz., M.S.Plates, M.S.Angles, M.S.Channels and H.R. Plates, which were purchased
In the case of Commissioner Of Central Excise, Vapi Vs. M/s. Global Health Care Products , the Supreme Court held that ‘Close up’ should be classified as dental cleaner, not toothpaste on account of different
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Vs. M/s. Thiru Arooran Sugars Ltd., Hon’ble Madras High Court held that the CENVAT credit of the service tax paid in respect of cell phone services, catering services
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V/s. M/S. Detergents India Ltd., Supreme Court has held that in case of related party transactions, proviso (iii) of Section 4(1)(a) will not be applicable when there is no arrangement between Shaw the related parties to depress a price which is otherwise at arm’s length.
In the case of The CC&CE V/s M/s. Panyam Cements & Minerals Industries Ltd., Kurnool, it was held by Andhra Pradesh High Court that invoking Section 11A is mandatory for recovering the refund granted pursuant to the adjudication order passed under section 11B which subsequently declared as unsustainable
In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa V/s. M/s Cosme Farma Laboratories Ltd., it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that in case of job work arrangement, the job worker should be considered as manufacturer on the basis of the arrangement
In the case of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, it was held by SC that a process that is only adding some value to the inputs does not necessarily amounts to manufacture. After processing of the inputs, a new and different article emerges having a distinct name, character or
In the case of M/s. Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur, it was held that a person who is ultimately aggrieved with the payment of the duty and challenges the order successfully can seek the refund as per Rule 11B of the act.
In the case of M/s. Vir Rubber Products P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Hon’ble SC held that for claiming SSI exemption under Central Excise law, the value of clearances made on account of job work under the brand name of principal manufacturer should not be included
